What is the effect of publication of EC minutes?

Here in NSW the law requires ECs to prepare and distribute ‘full and accurate’ minutes of their meetings.  But what does ‘full and accurate’ mean?

Many ECs take the view that it only requires that all items discussed and any resolutions made are recorded.  The debates and discussions themselves are not generally aired … unless the secretary or chair has a bee in their bonnet.

For instance, in recent minutes our secretary indulged in a lengthy explanation of why he had written to the government to complain that the incoming anti-proxy harvesting laws are anti-democratic. You can jump to your own conclusions about why any space in the minutes was taken up with this.

It has to be said that there was a lengthy response to an owner who had questioned the practice of strata managers taking commission on strata insurance. The response explained why it happened and how it occurred at no additional cost to the EC, so it was probably worth putting it out there. That said, we have no newsletter where it might have been even more effective.

Your caution about ‘naming and shaming’, even inadvertently, is admirable. Generally speaking, the less detail you give, the better, although there are situations, such as when the EC has a legal requirement to approve a motion before they can issue a Notice To Comply, where the guilty party has to be identified in the motion.

Many ECs get round this by using the Lot number, on the basis that no one knows their own lot number, let alone anyone else’s.

There are also occasions when you might want to explain why a decision has been made.  For instance, if you are closing the pool over winter for essential repairs rather than to save money or protect the environment, it’s worth spelling that out – which is where the newsletter is probably a more effective tool.

Your practice of not naming names in your minutes and newsletter is worth sticking to – for your own protection if not your neighbours’.

In NSW, the dealings of an owners corp have ‘qualified privilege’ when it comes to defamation.  This allows for robust and open discussion but protection against legal action pretty much evaporates as soon as any kind of malice is shown. The Sydney Morning Herald lost part of the defamation case brought by Joe Hockey because of an email that said “let’s nail him on this …”

Getting back to the notice board, it may be the only time owners actually read agendas and minutes so it does have value but you have to be extra careful.

An owner in a building I know sued some members of the EC for defamation because of an item in the minutes asking owners to write letters supporting the EC in their battle over a by-law.  The owner felt the wording of the request implied that they were a bad person.

Because the minutes were also pinned to the notice board, the owner’s lawyers argued that this had gone beyond the limits of internal discussions as the minutes could now potentially be read by visitors and tradespeople, lowering the owner’s standing in the community.

The owner lost, partly because neither malice nor broad publication could be proved, and had to pay very hefty costs.  But the emotional toll on the targetted EC members who had to turn up in court to be cross-examined by an eminent Special Counsel, was incalculable.

So I would say yes, post the minutes in their most minimal form including in a format like “an owner has claimed that a tenant has damaged their property – this is being investigated.”

In an effort to fire a warning shot, I might even go so far as saying something like “Neighbours of lot 567 have complained about excessive noise and parties. We are examining these allegations. Any other owners who may have suffered disturbance should contact the secretary …”  But only if there was no prior suggestion of malice in notes or emails. You could argue that no visitor or tradesperson would know where Lot 567 was, let alone who lived there.

And I would put at the bottom of your minutes “residents who would like to read further explanation on any of these items should contact the secretary and we will try to include it in the next newsletter.”

Are lot numbers and unit numbers the same in the ACT?  They tend to be very different here, hence the anonymity they provide.

It’s definitely different here – although if we said Unit 212 that would be the number on the door. But lot 3456 could be unit 212.

The problem with notifying unresolved disputes here arises if an owner puts forward a motions requesting a Notice To Comply be issued.  There has to be clear evidence that the EC has considered the issue at a meeting, that it was on the agenda and the minutes, or NCAT won’t even look at it. That’s when the partial anonymity of lot numbers comes in handy.